I actually haven’t studied the matter of Hebrew language very much, so I can’t offer much toward answering your question.
I’m of the opinion that archaelogy and science can enlighten us as to the proper interpretation of Genesis, not more hermanutics and linguistic analysis in this day and age.
Ironically, I’ve had a mild disdain for theologians and hermaneuticists. I never see the level of arguments among mathematicians and physicists over basic ideas like I do among theologians and hermaneuticists, thus I distrust their methods to infer what is and is not historical and are really not much better than anyone else who reads and ponders his translation of the Bible and ponders the facts available to him.
I actually had some bad experiences at church along the way, and I don’t get along with seminarians and maybe 50% of the practicing clergy.
I came to adopt much of my views about ID/Creation etc. outside of people pounding their hermaneutical ideas on me. In fact, I found the experience extremely distasteful.
Individuals like Richard Milton, Walter ReMine, Walter Bradley, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, John Sanford, James Tour, John Hartnett, David Coppedge, Tim Clarey, Paul Nelson, Nathaniel Jeanson, etc. were far more influential to me than preachers going around publicly demeaning the character of Christians who accepted evolutionary theory – that’s they only thing they seemed to be able to do since most preachers could not debate on scientific terms, and I found that distasteful.
That said, Merry Christmas Joshua and everyone else.
Congratulations on the wide circulation and acclaim of your most recent book.
Strangely, I find nothing in that article about old earth/young life creationism. It’s all about the interpretation of “eretz”, and the author takes the side of a very local meaning. What does any of that have to do with old earth or young life? I can’t so far find where he says.
Even in English Earth can be used to refer to the immediate locale, like “earthquake”.